Democrats Take Charge, Face Tough Road
The anti-GOP wave that upended Congress rewarded Democrats with new opportunities to help set the national agenda — and burdened them with the task of delivering on voters expectations.
"Time for a change," Sen. Harry Reid of Nevada, who likely will become the new Senate Majority Leader next year, said Thursday at a victory rally outside the Capitol. "This country has spoken loudly and clearly."
Between their promise to increase the minimum wage and their vow to seek a new direction in Iraq lies the difference over what is achievable and what might fall beyond their reach.
"Simply having the title of majority is not enough," said Sen. Richard Durbin of Illinois, the second-ranking Democratic leader in the Senate. "It's a long litany of challenges before us."
Reid and Rep. Nancy Pelosi, the would-be Speaker of the House, savored their victories on Wednesday but struck conciliatory tones, promising to work in a bipartisan way with congressional Republicans and the president.
"This is not a juggernaut just slicing through town," Reid said.
Pelosi and President Bush have had a contentious relationship. However, though strained smiles, they tried to get the message out that they were prepared to work together after a luncheon meeting at the White House on Thursday, reports CBS News chief White House correspondent Jim Axelrod.
"We won't agree on every issue, but we do agree that we love America equally, that we're concerned about the future of this country," Mr. Bush said.
Democrats won the slim 51-49 majority in the Senate with the victory of Democrat Jim Webb over Republican Sen. George Allen in a hard-fought Senate race in Virginia. Allen was told by his advisers that the numbers just weren't there and a recount — which could have dragged things out for weeks — wouldn't help him, CBS News Radio correspondent Bob Fuss reports. Allen conceded on Thursday.
With some races too close to call, Democrats held 230 seats in the House, 10 more than a bare majority. They appeared to be in line to win two more.
For Democrats, winning control of both chambers of Congress raises the stakes.
Besides hiking the minimum wage, they want to act quickly on legislation to enact recommendations of the 9/11 Commission, to reduce dependence on foreign oil, to expand stem cell research and to reduce the price of drugs offered through Medicare. All those pose potential legislative challenges, but none more than the Democrats' pledge to seek a new direction in the war in Iraq.
Surveys of voters conducted on Election Day showed that almost three out of five disapproved of the war and were more inclined to vote for the Democratic candidate. Only a third of voters said the war had improved the long-term security of the United States.
Still, the strategic course of the war is set by the president. Congress has little leverage to force the president to change course. Mr. Bush sent Congress a signal on Wednesday when he announced he would replace Secretary of State Donald H. Rumsfeld. The change, Mr. Bush said, would provide a "fresh perspective" on the war.
Recognizing Congress' limitation, Pelosi said that when it comes to Iraq, "it's not about the Democrats in Congress forcing the president's hand."
The first test on the war for Democrats could come next year when Mr. Bush sends Congress a spending bill to pay for operations in Iraq and Afghanistan. Democrats have said they will not hold war appropriations hostage in exchange for policy changes. Instead, they are hoping Mr. Bush will heed the results of the election and the upcoming recommendations of a bipartisan Iraq study group led by former Secretary of State James Baker.
"The president is the president of the United States," she said. "I hope that he will listen to the voices of the people and, again, putting aside partisanship and looking to a partnership to end this war."
Even with a majority, Democrats can't count on passing everything they want, reports CBS News correspondent Sharyl Atkisson. As a minority, Republicans can always filibuster in the Senate, and the President still has his veto pen.
Democrats in the House would be unable to override a presidential veto on their own, and it only takes 41 senators to filibuster legislation.
"The minority, as long as it has more than 41 people together, can have a great deal of impact on whether something passes at all, or, if it passes, what form it takes," said Sen. Mitch McConnell of Kentucky, who's in line to become the new Senate Republican leader.
Some Republicans cautioned against an obstructionist approach.
"If we do that, shame on us," said Sen. George Voinovich, R-Ohio. "If the Democrats do what I would do if I were them and reach out with a list of things to do, and if we're depicted as standing on the outside trying to prevent that from happening, it would be terrible for the country. And it's stupid politics."
Democrats already were offering to cooperate when the House and Senate reconvene under Republican control next week for a post-election session. The agenda includes unfinished business on legislation ranging from offshore drilling to a nuclear agreement with India to tax incentives for the production of alternative energy.
Also unfinished, however, are 10 spending bills needed to keep the government operating. Officials said it was possible lawmakers would simply leave final action on those bills to the new Congress. That would saddle Democrats with the task of tidying up the past when they would rather be looking to the future.
© 2009 CBS Interactive Inc. All Rights Reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed. The Associated Press contributed to this report. "Time for a change," Sen. Harry Reid of Nevada, who likely will become the new Senate Majority Leader next year, said Thursday at a victory rally outside the Capitol. "This country has spoken loudly and clearly."
Between their promise to increase the minimum wage and their vow to seek a new direction in Iraq lies the difference over what is achievable and what might fall beyond their reach.
"Simply having the title of majority is not enough," said Sen. Richard Durbin of Illinois, the second-ranking Democratic leader in the Senate. "It's a long litany of challenges before us."
Reid and Rep. Nancy Pelosi, the would-be Speaker of the House, savored their victories on Wednesday but struck conciliatory tones, promising to work in a bipartisan way with congressional Republicans and the president.
"This is not a juggernaut just slicing through town," Reid said.
Pelosi and President Bush have had a contentious relationship. However, though strained smiles, they tried to get the message out that they were prepared to work together after a luncheon meeting at the White House on Thursday, reports CBS News chief White House correspondent Jim Axelrod.
"We won't agree on every issue, but we do agree that we love America equally, that we're concerned about the future of this country," Mr. Bush said.
Democrats won the slim 51-49 majority in the Senate with the victory of Democrat Jim Webb over Republican Sen. George Allen in a hard-fought Senate race in Virginia. Allen was told by his advisers that the numbers just weren't there and a recount — which could have dragged things out for weeks — wouldn't help him, CBS News Radio correspondent Bob Fuss reports. Allen conceded on Thursday.
With some races too close to call, Democrats held 230 seats in the House, 10 more than a bare majority. They appeared to be in line to win two more.
For Democrats, winning control of both chambers of Congress raises the stakes.
Besides hiking the minimum wage, they want to act quickly on legislation to enact recommendations of the 9/11 Commission, to reduce dependence on foreign oil, to expand stem cell research and to reduce the price of drugs offered through Medicare. All those pose potential legislative challenges, but none more than the Democrats' pledge to seek a new direction in the war in Iraq.
Surveys of voters conducted on Election Day showed that almost three out of five disapproved of the war and were more inclined to vote for the Democratic candidate. Only a third of voters said the war had improved the long-term security of the United States.
Still, the strategic course of the war is set by the president. Congress has little leverage to force the president to change course. Mr. Bush sent Congress a signal on Wednesday when he announced he would replace Secretary of State Donald H. Rumsfeld. The change, Mr. Bush said, would provide a "fresh perspective" on the war.
Recognizing Congress' limitation, Pelosi said that when it comes to Iraq, "it's not about the Democrats in Congress forcing the president's hand."
The first test on the war for Democrats could come next year when Mr. Bush sends Congress a spending bill to pay for operations in Iraq and Afghanistan. Democrats have said they will not hold war appropriations hostage in exchange for policy changes. Instead, they are hoping Mr. Bush will heed the results of the election and the upcoming recommendations of a bipartisan Iraq study group led by former Secretary of State James Baker.
"The president is the president of the United States," she said. "I hope that he will listen to the voices of the people and, again, putting aside partisanship and looking to a partnership to end this war."
Even with a majority, Democrats can't count on passing everything they want, reports CBS News correspondent Sharyl Atkisson. As a minority, Republicans can always filibuster in the Senate, and the President still has his veto pen.
Democrats in the House would be unable to override a presidential veto on their own, and it only takes 41 senators to filibuster legislation.
"The minority, as long as it has more than 41 people together, can have a great deal of impact on whether something passes at all, or, if it passes, what form it takes," said Sen. Mitch McConnell of Kentucky, who's in line to become the new Senate Republican leader.
Some Republicans cautioned against an obstructionist approach.
"If we do that, shame on us," said Sen. George Voinovich, R-Ohio. "If the Democrats do what I would do if I were them and reach out with a list of things to do, and if we're depicted as standing on the outside trying to prevent that from happening, it would be terrible for the country. And it's stupid politics."
Democrats already were offering to cooperate when the House and Senate reconvene under Republican control next week for a post-election session. The agenda includes unfinished business on legislation ranging from offshore drilling to a nuclear agreement with India to tax incentives for the production of alternative energy.
Also unfinished, however, are 10 spending bills needed to keep the government operating. Officials said it was possible lawmakers would simply leave final action on those bills to the new Congress. That would saddle Democrats with the task of tidying up the past when they would rather be looking to the future.
Popular in Politics
- Officials on Benghazi: "We made mistakes, but without malice" 437 Comments
- IRS' Lerner: "I have not done anything wrong" 200 Comments
- Anthony Weiner comeback try begins: Running for NYC mayor 102 Comments
- Major immigration overhaul passes first big test 66 Comments
- Will tornado relief funding escape politics?
- Top IRS official to invoke 5th Amendment at congressional testimony 212 Comments
- U.S. IDs several men possibly responsible for Benghazi attack
- Va. GOP candidate won't apologize for comments on abortion, gays
Thank you Fiji, You are right and concise ! Bush was ( is ) too liberal. That is why I do not think that he is too upset about the Dem victory, in that he can now have "family values" at the border, and so you can see AMNESTY pass, and more "workers" here, also their closest relatives (like distant aunts and 2nd cousins) ( thanks to Teddy) getting a pass here, benefits like health care,and social security benefits, while we working stiffs pay, and pay,and pay. Unless you are corporate guy with pretax dollars to buy insurance protection for you ! LUCKY GUYS
And forget about the "fence" IT WILL NEVER HAPPEN !. HA HA HA . Are you kidding ! ( 100/1 odds on that one, ANYONE ? I will bet real pesos !) ( Chico Marx "That was a good one Boss!)
More gov't give a ways , more expansion of medicare drug and all pediatric care on the way. More workers for big business displacing American middle class.
There will not be any impeachment or hearings, because Bush will willingly cave to the Dem on all fronts. He is happy ! LET'S ALL BE HAPPY ! (sung to the tune, He's a jolly good fellow:
"HE's a HAPPY HAPPY BUSH !"
Foreign policy will not see us get really serious about the war, unless ( God forbid) we are attacked at home with something catastrophic.
obviously
The newly elected congress was not a vote on Liberalism it was a vote of conservatisim if you will look at each states initiative.
Yes - Bush was too liberal!!!!!
I'm afraid the Libs now in power are clueless and ******** bricks because all they know was how to bring down a President and the administration for 6 years. Now they actually have to fight an enemy who dosn't care which political office is in charge. Be careful what you wish for...
If they fail to lead, it will be time to go to Plan B...throw them all out by committing to never voting for an incumbent again (regardless of party) and having a serious debate over the merits of term limits. Interestingly enough, I heard a "talkie" on liberal radio say that the great thing about the change on Tuesday is that lots of new blood is coming to Washington in January. Wouldn't it be great to be guaranteed new Representatives and Senators every eight or twelve years by limiting House members to four terms and the Senate to two terms?
Remember, Is. moved out of all of Gaza for peace, And what happened ?
Take out the enemy like Israel just did the other day, killing 18 civilians 'by accident' as Olmert puts it?
And why Pakistan and Syria? Why did we abandon the effort in Afghanistan, where we left Bin Laden? I think before we jump into two new wars we should finish the first one, catch the guy who killed almost 3,000 American civilians, and get out of the second so Iraq can start rebuilding without our interference in their (as Bush put it) Democratic government.
And I'd point out that the only people talking about the Democrats defunding the military seem to be people like O'Reilly the other night, and Republicans wanting the Dems to look weak. I haven't heard of any Democrats suggesting we do so - or maybe someone here can tell me which Democrats are saying this?
If the Dems want to cut and run before the deal is finished then go ahead, history though will put the blame square on them for failure, so will the voters in 2008!
THE BORDER FENCE IS DEAD